Abstract
The importance of self-regulatory skills for the socio-emotional competencies of children is being researched and discussed extensively. However, in order to make a clear statement about the impact of self-regulation on children’s morality, a systematic review of the literature is urgently needed. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to analyze associations between self-regulation and morality of preschool and elementary school children. In this context, distinctions among different definitions and operationalizations of self-regulation and morality are considered. Search terms were entered in the bibliographic databases PsycINFO, Scopus and Web of Science. To meet the inclusion criterion, studies needed to report empirical associations between self-regulation and morality in children of preschool and elementary school age. Furthermore, the studies should report primary data and be published in English in a peer-reviewed journal. Studies with secondary or summarized data, special populations or with certain designs were excluded. A total of 37 studies were included in the narrative synthesis. 35 of these studies were included in the meta-analysis. The narrative synthesis showed that different definitions and operationalizations were used for both self-regulation and morality. There also seems to be no consensus regarding the association between the constructs. Meta-analysis results revealed a small positive combined effect between self-regulation and morality, especially between temperament-related self-regulation and moral behavior and moral emotions. In order to gain a better understanding of the effects of self-regulation on morality, longitudinal research and further research addressing different forms of these constructs are essential.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Children experience themselves as moral actors from an early age. In moral conflict situations, the wishes and attitudes of children may conflict with the needs of other children (Vera-Estay et al., 2016). In such conflict situations, children are faced with different choices of actions, being pulled into contrary directions by rival moral values, duties and reasons (e.g., conflicts between personal interests (e.g., going on time to a leisure park) and moral duties (helping a person in need) (Christensen & Gomila, 2012; Weller & Lagattuta, 2014). For acting morally, it can be crucial that children regulate their feelings, thoughts, and behaviors in conflict situations (Martel et al., 2007). The importance of self-regulation skills on social and emotional competencies of children has already been highlighted in previous literature (Eisenberg, 2000; Eisenberg et al., 1996; Rademacher & Koglin, 2019). Further studies highlighted association between impaired self-regulatory skills and negative (clinical) outcomes (Baldessarini et al., 2017; Robson et al., 2020). However, in order to make clear statements about the impact of self-regulatory skills on children’s morality, further discussions and research are needed (Blasi, 2013).
Self-regulation comprises various skills for controlling thoughts, emotions and behavior. These self-regulatory skills develop in early childhood, then increase rapidly from kindergarten and preschool age and develop in non-linear processes through to adulthood (Berger et al., 2007; Denham et al., 2014; Nigg, 2017; Zelazo & Carlson, 2012). The greatest growth in self-regulatory skills occurs in early to middle childhood (Raffaelli et al., 2005). At this age, children are increasingly able to inhibit behavior and initiate goal-directed behavior (McClelland et al., 2007). Since adaptive self-regulation strategies contribute to well-adjusted behavior in preschool or class settings, it seems particularly interesting to examine the association between self-regulation and morality for this age group (Skibbe et al., 2019). The literature highlights that moral action depends not only on moral variables, but also on impulse control, attention, emotional reactions, and the ability to delay gratification (Eisenberg, 2000; Kohlberg, 1981; Oser, 2013). Eisenberg et al. (2000) emphasizes the importance of emotionality and the ability to regulate emotions for theorizing moral development and behavior. Further studies found an association between children’s effortful control (temperamental aspect of self-regulation) and greater internalization of and compliance with rules (Kochanska et al., 1997; Kochanska & Knaack, 2003). It can be hypothesized that children who have high self-regulatory skills are able to put their own interests aside in morally conflicting situations and react morally.
Research has shown that clinical samples (e.g., samples with behavior disorders or callous-unemotional tendencies) differ from community samples in their morality and self-regulation and thus their experiences cannot be considered equivalent for the purposes of the review (Arsenio & Fleiss, 1996; Lotze et al., 2010).
In current studies, different terminologies and aspects of self-regulation are examined depending on the research perspective (Nigg, 2017). Temperament research focuses on effortful control (Kochanska et al., 1994, 1996, 1997); cognitive psychological perspectives focus on executive functions such as attention control and working memory (Cowell et al., 2015, 2017; Hinnant et al., 2013). Rademacher and Koglin (2019) highlighted that different forms and research perspectives of self-regulation should be analyzed separately so that the complex construct of self-regulation can be better understood. Similarly, research on morality also uses various constructs like moral emotions or cognition to answer the question of why a person behaves morally (Oser, 2013). In order to make clear statements about the relationship between self-regulation and morality, the different operationalizations and definitions of the constructs should be considered.
This systematic review and meta-analysis examine, the state of research on the empirical associations between self-regulation and morality. In the narrative synthesis, different definitions and operationalizations of the two constructs are considered; identifying differentiated relationships between the individual aspects of self-regulation in the context of morality. In addition, to further analyze the relationship between self-regulation and morality, a meta-analysis is conducted. Accordingly, the following research questions are processed: (1) How are self-regulation and morality defined and operationalized in this context? (2) Which empirical results are reported in current research regarding the question of associations between self-regulation and morality in preschool and elementary school age?
Due to the different research perspectives, a high degree of heterogeneity in the definitions and operationalizations of self-regulation and morality is expected (Nigg, 2017; Oser, 2013). To address these different research perspectives, a list of definitions for each study was synthesized to clarify which constructs and operationalizations were used (see Table 1). Despite the expected heterogeneity of the definitions, the association between self-regulation and morality should be examined in a meta-analysis. In the meta-analysis, the constructs are summarized in superordinate constructs depending on the research perspective and operationalization mentioned in the respective studies. For example, the constructs impulsivity and behavioral inhibition are summarized under the aspect of temperament-related self-regulation and constructs such as not cheating or sharing are summarized under the aspect of moral behavior. Concepts from the same study and research perspectives were amalgamated. Studies that focused on several research perspectives or components of self-regulation or morality were therefore included several times. A detailed assignment can also be found in Table 1 and Fig. 1.
Mind map for different terminologies synthesized regarding self-regulation and morality
Methods
The systematic literature search in the bibliographic databases PsycINFO, Scopus and Web of Science was carried out in October 2020. Additionally, an update to the search up to and including March 2022 at the end of the process was done. Guidelines for preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses were followed (PRISMA; Moher et al., 2009; Page et al., 2021). Data organization and extraction was carried out with the software EPPI-Reviewer (Thomas et al., 2020). The statistical program R was used for meta-analytical calculations (R Core Team, 2020). In particular the statistical packages “meta” (Balduzzi et al., 2019), “metafor” (Viechtbauer, 2010), “dmetar” (Harrer et al., 2021), and “tidyverse” (Wickham et al., 2019) were used. Following search terms were used to identify studies that examined the associations between self-regulation and morality in preschool and elementary school children:
Self-regulation [self-regulat* OR self-control OR "emotion* regulation" OR "executive function*" OR "effortful control" OR Inhibit* OR impulsiv*] AND Morality [moral* OR guilt OR shame OR empathy OR sympathy OR jealous* OR pride OR embarrass*] AND
Preschool and schoolchildren [preschool* OR kindergart* OR nursery OR child* OR "Primary school*" OR "elementary school*" OR "basic education"]
Inclusion and exclusion criteria.
The following inclusion and exclusion criteria were defined: Included studies (1) examined the empirical association between self-regulation and morality. Studies that focused on these and other associations (e.g., moderation or mediation) were also included. (2) Included studies described relationships among children of preschool and elementary school age, i.e., around the age of three to eleven. If children’s ages were slightly out of range (± two years; applies to k = 18 studies), studies were also included. Included studies (3) reported primary empirical data, (4) had been published in English and were (5) published in peer-reviewed journals.
Studies with secondary or summarized data as well as reviews and theoretical papers were excluded. Additionally, experimental studies and studies with clinical samples or samples with children with a mental or physical impairment were excluded because they differ in their methodological and theoretical basis. Contributions such as dissertations, conference contributions, books and book chapters were excluded as well. When databases offered the possibility of setting search restrictions, the results were filtered by language and document type (articles only).
Additionally, necessary statistical parameters for calculating effect sizes must be reported regarding the meta-analytical calculations. If the necessary information were missing, the authors of the respective studies were contacted. If the necessary parameters could not be obtained, the studies were excluded. Two authors were contacted to inquire missing statistical parameters, one of whom did not respond and was therefore excluded from the meta-analysis. Since the analysis by Gummerum and López-Pérez (2020) only records frequency (percentages) analyses and does not pursue analysis of associations, this study was also excluded from the meta-analysis.
Study Identification
After the keyword-search, all 2538 hits were exported to the reference management program EPPI-Reviewer (Thomas et al., 2020). 754 duplicates were removed. The remaining 1784 articles were subjected to a title and abstract screening, in which the previously defined inclusion and exclusion criteria were checked. 124 articles were rechecked by full-text screening. As a result, 34 studies met all inclusion criteria and were considered in the further analyses. The references of the included studies were checked using manual backwards procedure and three additional studies were identified. A total of 37 studies were included in the narrative synthesis of this review. Two of these studies were excluded from the meta-analyses because the necessary statistical parameters could not be determined, since one author did not respond after contacting and another did not analyze associations between the constructs. Figure 2 presents the process of study identification.
Flow diagram. Note. PRISMA 2020 flowchart for study identification (based on Page et al., 2021)
Data Analysis and Evaluation
The following data were extracted from the studies: (1) study identification, (2) methods - participants (number, age, gender), (3) methods - sample (country, determination of sample size, selection process, remuneration), (4) methods - design (dependent and independent variables, instruments, cross-sectional or longitudinal section), (5) operationalization and definition of self-regulation and morality, (6) study objectives (research questions, hypotheses, theories), (7) results and discussion (analysis, control variables, results, statistical parameters for meta-analysis, discussion). The data extraction list was piloted with five articles. Most of the included studies had multiple and different research questions, which were not always related to self-regulation or morality. In such cases only results that are relevant to the current review were extracted.
Definitions and operationalizations relating to self-regulation and morality were reported, classified, and quantified in the narrative synthesis and are summarized in Table 1 and Fig. 1. In the narrative synthesis of the associations of the constructs, results of regression analyses were reported. Correlations results were reported, if no regression analyses were performed. Additionally, results of relationships between the constructs were examined quantitatively by using meta-analytical calculations.
For the meta-analysis, it was hypothesized that high levels of self-regulation are associated with high levels of morality. Mainly, correlation coefficients were extracted for better comparability. If necessary, effects were first transformed into r-values. Since different methods were used in the included studies, delta (Δ) was used as a uniform effect size. The effects were recoded in the same direction. Therefore, a positive effect suggested that a high level of self-regulation is associated with a high level of morality. If only insignificant results were reported, the effect size was set to zero (Cohen, 1988; Ellis, 2010; Lipsey & Wilson, 2001; Peterson & Brown, 2005; Rosenthal, 1994). Additionally, separate meta-analyses at the level of the different constructs were carried out. For constructs that could be combined (e.g., moral emotions such as guilt and shame) and when several effect sizes were reported, a mean study effect size was calculated (Beelmann & Bliesener, 1994).
Nine subgroups were examined to determine whether these had a moderating effect onto the association. Regarding the sample, subgroup analyses for the continents (North America, Europe, Asia, and South America) from which these were recruited and the age (Preschool age, School age and both age groups) were included. As methodologically relevant moderators, the design of the studies (cross-sectional or longitudinal), the source of the morality report (assessment completed by children versus others), and the source of the self-regulation report (assessment completed by children versus others) were included. Regarding statistically relevant moderator, the sample power was assessed by a post hoc calculation with G*Power (Faul et al., 2007, 2009) and categorizing these into underpowered (< .80) and enough power (> .80; Faul et al., 2007, 2009). Furthermore, the quality of the studies (fair versus good) were utilized as a subgroup (NHLBI, 2021).
Due to the different methods used in the included studies, the differences in population effects should be considered. Consequently, models with random effect sizes (Random effect models) were selected for the analyses (Ellis, 2010; Lipsey & Wilson, 2001; Rosenthal, 1994). To determine the heterogeneity Cochran’s Q, Higgin’s and Thompson’s I2, τ2 and p were calculated (Higgins & Thompson, 2002). If I2 = 25% the heterogeneity is low, if I2 = 50% it is moderate and if I2 = 75% the heterogeneity is high (Higgins et al., 2003). To identify possible sources of heterogeneity, influencer-analyses (Baujat et al., 2002; Harrer et al., 2021) were conducted and prior selected subgroups were analyzed. To determine publication bias, funnel plots were created and fail-safe N results were reported (Egger et al., 1997; Orwin, 1983; Rosenthal, 1979).
Additionally, the Study Quality Assessment Tool of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI, 2021) was applied for all studies included (see Appendix A). A guide with 14 criteria was used to assess the quality of cross-sectional and longitudinal studies. Studies that (1) measured self-regulation prior to morality, (2) showed sufficient time between the measurement times, (3) recorded important control variables, and (4) adequately defined self-regulation and morality, were rated as “good”. Studies which did not meet the first two points, (e.g. cross-sectional studies) were rated as “fair”. If a study neither included control variables nor described the variables accordingly, it was classified as “poor” (NHLBI, 2021).
Results
Study Characteristics
A total of 37 studies were included in the narrative synthesis. The studies were published between 1974 and 2021. 6062 children between the ages of 22 months and 13 years took part in the studies. Sample sizes varied depending on the study (Minn = 36, Maxn = 999). The studies include samples from North America (n = 23), Europe (n = 6), Asia (n = 5) and South America (n = 1). Two studies included samples from different continents (Cowell et al., 2017; Narvaez et al., 2021). 12 studies have a longitudinal and 25 have a cross-sectional design. All cross-sectional studies were rated as “fair” in terms of their quality. All longitudinal studies were rated as “good”, with the exception of Feldman (2007) and Garner (2012), which were “fair” (NHLBI, 2021). The included studies focused on different aspects of self-regulation and utilized different conceptualizations. Temperament-related aspects of self-regulation were examined 21 times, executive functions eleven times, emotion regulation four times, and for five times there was no specific conceptualization in this direction (e.g., general cognitive aspects of self-regulation).
Different conceptualizations were also used in regard to morality: moral behavior was examined 15 times, emotions 13 times, cognition 12 times, conscience four times, moral abilities three times, and moral motivation and the moral self once each. In some cases, however, individual aspects with the example of moral emotions such as empathy or guilt were also conceptualized as an aspect of conscience. All results of the narrative synthesis are summarized in Table 1. Additionally, a mind map for the different terminologies that were synthesized regarding self-regulation and morality was created (see Fig. 1).
Narrative Synthesis of Definitions and Operationalizations of Self-Regulation
Temperamental Aspects of Self-Regulation
In the studies, temperament-related aspects of self-regulation were examined most frequently (see Table 1). Rothbart et al. (1994a, b) define temperament as biologically based individual differences in reactivity and self-regulation. Reactivity includes excitability and reactions associated with it. Additionally, it is part of the bottom-up regulatory processes, which mainly run automatically. Self-regulation is purposeful and deliberate and includes top-down processes of attentiveness. It also processes of approach, withdrawal, as well as self-calming. Self-regulation can help modulate reactivity (Nigg, 2017; Rothbart, 1989; Rothbart & Derryberry, 1981). Temperament-related aspects of self-regulation can therefore also cover different aspects of self-regulation. For example, Rothbart and Bates (2007) emphasizes that there are two temperament-related control systems: “One is part of an emotional reaction (fear and behavioral inhibition), the other is more completely self-regulatory (attentional control), with the first system developing earlier than the second” (Rothbart & Bates, 2007, p. 131). Children characterized as fearful, with little rapprochement or greater avoidance of novelty are classified as behaviorally inhibited (Asendorpf & Nunner-Winkler, 1992; Cornell & Frick, 2007; Kagan, 1989; Stifter et al., 2009). Low levels of behavioral inhibition therefore reflect low levels of self-regulation (Rothbart & Bates, 2007). Behavioral inhibition is defined as the “bottom-up interruption of a behavior sequence in response to novel, ambiguous, or threatening stimulus; mediated by internal state of anxiety. A component of bottom-up and reactive aspects of SR” (Nigg, 2017, p. 38). Most of the included studies measured behavioral inhibition using questionnaires (e.g., Behavioral Inhibition Questionnaire; Bishop et al., 2003) with reports from parents or teachers as well as self-reports from children. Augustine and Stifter (2015) and Stifter et al. (2009) used observations.
Inhibitory control is defined as the ability to suppress dominant stimuli or poorly adapted reactions (e.g., Kochanska et al., 1996; Smith et al., 2013). In contrast, impulsivity is defined as less intentional, conscious, or flexible and includes regulatory cognitive components (dos Santos et al., 2020; Eisenberg et al., 2009; Nigg, 2017). Inhibitory control is also defined as the main component of effortful control (Kochanska & Knaack, 2003; Rothbart & Bates, 2007). Effortful control comprises the ability to suppress dominant and prepotent reactions consciously to carry out subdominant reactions and includes top-down regulatory processes (Dong et al., 2021; dos Santos et al., 2020; Nigg, 2017; Stifter et al., 2009). Besides effortful control, the temperamental aspects of surgency (dimensions such as impulsiveness and shyness) and negative affect (malaise, fear, anger, frustration, sadness, and decreased reactivity and reassurance) were also measured in the included studies (Rothbart et al., 1994a, b; Smetana et al., 2012; Yoo & Smetana, 2021). Depending on age groups, the respective scales of the Children’s Behavior Questionnaire (CBQ; Rothbart et al., 2001), the Temperament in Middle Childhood Questionnaire (TMCQ; Simonds & Rothbart, 2004) or the Early Adolescent Temperament Questionnaire (EATQ; Capaldi & Rothbart, 1992) were used for measuring temperament-related aspects of self-regulation. Some included studies also used behavioral batteries with various tasks to measure effortful control and inhibitory control (e.g., Dong et al., 2021; Kochanska et al., 1997; Kochanska & Knaack, 2003; Stifter et al., 2009; Yoo & Smetana, 2021).
Executive Functions
Executive functions comprise cross-domain, social and cognitive abilities and processes that encompass behavioral, emotional and cognitive functions and control, including future-oriented, planned, and regulated behavior (Baker et al., 2021; Cowell et al., 2015, 2017; Wang et al., 2021; Zelazo & Müller, 2011). Effortful control and inhibitory control are also considered to be components of executive functions (Diamond, 2013; Reis & Sampaio, 2019; Wang et al., 2021; Smetana et al., 2012). Furthermore, shift in attention or flexibility, planning skills and working memory are defined as aspects of executive functions (Cowell et al., 2015; Hinnant et al., 2013). Tan et al. (2020) additionally conceptualize the ability to delay gratification as an aspect of executive functions (Mischel et al., 1972; Rodriguez et al., 1989). With regard to the respective definitions and aspects, overlaps with the temperament-related aspects of self-regulation were found. Both, effortful control or inhibitory control and executive functions include inhibition of prepotent or dominant reactions (dos Santos et al., 2020; Hinnant et al., 2013; Kochanska et al., 2009; Kochanska & Knaack, 2003; Stifter et al., 2009). Temperament-related aspects of self-regulation were often measured by parent reports in the included studies. Executive functions were measured by various tasks completed by children, for example, stroop-like tasks (Gerstadt et al., 1994) like day-night (Reis & Sampaio, 2019; Stifter et al., 2009). Measurement methods in the included studies also overlapped regarding different constructs. For example, the day-night task was also used to measure temperament-related aspects of self-regulation (e.g., dos Santos et al., 2020; Kochanska et al., 2009).
Emotion Regulation
Emotion regulation describes the ability to understand and respond to emotions (Garner, 2012). It is defined as a goal-oriented process that modulates, initiates, inhibits or maintains a sum of emotion-related, motivational, attention and behavioral processes (Eisenberg & Spinrad, 2004; Hinnant et al., 2013; Panfile & Laible, 2012). Negative emotionality is defined as the frequency, intensity, and duration of experiences with negative affective states (e.g., sadness or anger; Denham, 1998; Panfile & Laible, 2012; Rothbart & Putnam, 2002). According to Gummerum and López-Pérez (2020), interpersonal or extrinsic emotion regulation includes the regulation of the emotions of others to improve or worsen another’s active emotional state. Garner (2012) and Hinnant et al. (2013) used the parent report of the Emotion Regulation Checklist (ERC; Shields & Cicchetti, 1997) to measure emotion regulation. Panfile and Laible (2012) aggregated the scales of the ERC (Shields & Cicchetti, 1997) and the CBQ (Rothbart et al., 2001) and formed a scale for emotion regulation and a scale for negativity. Gummerum and López-Pérez (2020) used three hypothetical moral scenarios to measure interpersonal emotion regulation.
Other Aspect of Self-Regulation
Some studies used conceptualizations, like Ego Control (Asendorpf & Nunner-Winkler, 1992), general cognitive aspects of self-regulation (Tabibi et al., 2016), resistance to deviation (LaVoie, 1974), misbehavior (Narvaez et al., 2021) or self-regulated compliance (Feldman, 2007) that cannot be classified into the aforementioned classifications.
Narrative Synthesis of Definitions and Operationalizations of Morality
Moral Behavior
Moral behavior is defined as the ability to inhibit behaviors such as cheating, lying or rule violation (Asendorpf & Nunner-Winkler, 1992; Augustine & Stifter, 2015; Dong et al., 2021; Stifter et al., 2009; Wang et al., 2021). Further included studies suggest that prosocial behavior can mirror moral behavior and antisocial behavior can mirror immoral behavior (Asendorpf & Nunner-Winkler, 1992; Augustine & Stifter, 2015; Colasante et al., 2014; Stifter et al., 2009). For example, sharing or donating has been conceptualized as prosocial as well as moral behavior (Cowell et al., 2015, 2017; Reis & Sampaio, 2019; Smith et al., 2013; Tan et al., 2020; Wildeboer et al., 2017). Reis and Sampaio (2019) conceptualize sharing as a behavioral component associated with moral reasoning, arguing that sharing shows ways in which children apply and judge norms of justice. Colasante et al. (2014) and Dong et al. (2021) used the parental report of the My Child Conscience Instrument to measure moral behavior (Kochanska et al., 1994). All other included studies used behavioral observations in the context of tasks or play situations to assess the children’s moral behavior.
Moral Emotions
Research identified self-conscious emotions, such as guilt, shame, empathy, or pride as relevant variables in moral development (Eisenberg, 2000; Lewis, 2000; Muris et al., 2015; Tangney et al., 2007). Guilt is a feeling that is triggered by violations of internalized moral standards and is associated with worry, restlessness, tension, as well as the desire to make amends (Colasante et al., 2014, 2015; dos Santos et al., 2020; Hoffman, 2000). Shame in turn, is defined as an emotion including despondency, helplessness, and the desire to escape (dos Santos et al., 2020; Ferguson et al., 1999; Muris et al., 2015). Panfile and Laible (2012) conceptualize empathy as a precursor to prosocial and moral behavior (Eisenberg & Miller, 1987; Hoffman, 1990). Empathy is also associated with affective concern for a person in need (Young et al., 1999). Sympathy is conceptualized as the concern that arises from the perception of the emotional state of another (Colasante et al., 2014, 2015). Jambon et al. (2021) conceptualized happy victimizer tendencies as positive emotion expectations while harming others to achieve a goal. Parent reports were primarily used to measure children’s moral emotions in the included studies. Narvaez et al. (2021), Panfile and Laible (2012) and Colasante et al. (2014) used the My Child Conscience Instrument by Kochanska et al. (1994) to measure empathy or guilt. However, they did not discuss moral emotions with regard to the theory of conscience development. In addition, interviews with children including hypothetical moral conflicts were used to measure guilt or happy victimizer tendencies (Colasante et al., 2014; Colasante et al., 2015; Jambon et al., 2021). According to Gummerum and López-Pérez (2020) the moral emotion attribution can be distinguished from moral emotions. Moral emotion attribution encompasses the expected emotions in moral scenarios. To measure these, hypothetical moral scenarios of social exclusion were used.
Conscience
Five of the selected studies conceptualize moral emotions as part of the conscience (Cornell & Frick, 2007; Kochanska et al., 2009; Nicolais et al., 2017; Rothbart et al., 1994a, b; Stifter et al., 2009). Kochanska et al. (1994) described conscience development as a part of socialization. According to the conceptual model of early conscience development, there are two components: (1) the affective discomfort including arousal, fear of deviations, guilt and remorse related to actual or hypothetical misconduct, and (2) the behavioral control including the ability to refrain from misconduct, to exercise restraint from prohibited impulses and to implement behavioral standards (Kochanska, 1993; Kochanska et al., 1994). Furthermore, other aspects such as moral behavior (Kochanska et al., 1996, 1997; Nicolais et al., 2017; Stifter et al., 2009), moral cognition (Kochanska et al., 1997; Nicolais et al., 2017), concern after wrongdoing, internalized conduct (Narvaez et al., 2021) and the moral self (Kochanska et al., 1997) were conceptualized as part of conscience development. To measure conscience parental reports (e.g., My Child conscience instrument; Kochanska et al., 1994), behavioral observations or interviews with hypothetical moral situations were used.
Moral Cognition
Moral cognition contains mental processes, such as judgments or reasoning about moral issues (Bandura, 2002; Guerra et al., 1994). Gummerum and López-Pérez (2020), Smetana et al. (2012) and Yoo and Smetana (2021) consider moral judgment from the perspective of the social domain theory. Accordingly, they distinguish moral judgments from conventional or personal judgments (Smetana et al., 2014; Turiel, 1983, 2006; Yoo & Smetana, 2021). Five of the studies examine moral reasoning and conceptualize it as part of moral cognition (Baker et al., 2021; Feldman, 2007; Harari & Weinstock, 2021; Hinnant et al., 2013; Vera-Estay et al., 2016). Moral reasoning involves responses to situations where the needs or desires of others conflict with the own. The justification whether a person in need should be helped is recorded (Eisenberg, 1982). Moral cognition was measured using hypothetical moral scenarios presented in interview situations (e.g., social rules interview; Nucci & Turiel, 1978).
Other Aspect of Morality
Further studies used other conceptualizations such as moral motivation (Asendorpf & Nunner-Winkler, 1992) and moral abilities or competencies in a broader sense (Feldman, 2007; Garner, 2012; Tan et al., 2020).
Narrative Synthesis of the Associations between Self-Regulation and Morality
This configurative synthesis describes the association between different aspects of self-regulation and different aspects of morality. Only results that align with the review question are reported. First and foremost, results of regression analyses are reported. Correlation results were reported if no regression analyses were performed. Various confounding variables were included in the analyses of the selected studies. Detailed information on individual associations with the respective confounding variables are presented in Table 1.
Temperamental Aspects of Self-Regulation and Morality
Behavioral Inhibition
Asendorpf and Nunner-Winkler (1992) identified behavioral inhibition as a negative predictor of cheating and egoistic behavior mirroring immoral behavior. Augustine and Stifter (2015) also associated it with moral behavior. In contrast Stifter et al. (2009) reported that behavioral inhibition did not correlate with moral behavior and emotionality. Similarly, Nicolais et al. (2017) reported no correlations with any of the moral variables in the study (moral choice, emotions, cognition or behavior). Cornell and Frick (2007) on the other hand stated that behavioral inhibition was correlated with the moral emotion guilt, but not with empathy. Muris et al. (2015) identified positive correlations with the self-conscious moral emotions shame and guilt. When the shared variance of guilt and shame were controlled, correlations were weakened so that behavioral inhibition and guilt (shame-free guilt) were no longer significant. Moreover, Asendorpf and Nunner-Winkler (1992) reported no significant correlations between behavioral inhibition and moral motivation. The association between behavioral inhibition and morality has been examined in six studies. Behavioral inhibition was not linked to moral cognition nor to moral motivation. Results concerning moral behavior and moral emotions varied.
Inhibitory Control
Colasante et al. (2014) conducted a mediation analysis revealing the moral emotions guilt and sympathy as mediators of the association between inhibitory control and reparation as a part of moral behavior. Jambon et al. (2021) reported that greater inhibitory control predicted a faster decrease in happy victimizing tendencies over time. In contrast, Colasante et al. (2015) reported inhibitory control did not correlate with these moral emotions. Smith et al. (2013) identified different results depending on the measurement methods for self-regulation. Inhibitory control measured with the day-night task correlated positively with sharing as a part of moral behavior. There was no significant correlation with the bear-dragon task. Stifter et al. (2009) reported that inhibitory control did not correlate with moral behavior and emotionality. Further studies stated that inhibitory control was a positive predictor of conscience (Kochanska et al., 1997; Narvaez et al., 2021) and empathy (Narvaez et al., 2021). Similarly, Kochanska et al. (1996) reported that inhibitory control and impulsivity were significant predictors of conscience. The association between inhibitory control and morality has been examined in eight studies. Inhibitory control was linked to conscience. Additionally, results concerning moral behavior and moral emotions seem to differ.
Effortful Control, Negative Affect and Surgency
Dos Santos et al. (2020) reported that effortful control was a positive predictor for guilt, but not for shame. No significant associations between impulsivity (reflecting unregulated behavior) and guilt or shame were identified. Similarly, Rothbart et al. (1994a, b) identified that effortful control and negative affect (reflecting emotional components of regulation) positively predicted empathy and guilt/shame. Surgency (reflecting impulsive behavior) was not a predictor. Further studies stated that effortful control alone was not a predictor for moral behavior (Dong et al., 2021) or cognition (Yoo & Smetana, 2021). Kochanska et al. (2009) on the other hand, stated a positive correlation between effortful control and guilt and Smetana et al. (2012) reported that surgency and effortful control were predictors for children’s understanding of moral generalizability as a part of moral judgement. Kochanska et al. (1994) found that high effortful control predicted high affective moral discomfort for girls and higher active moral regulation or vigilance for both girls and boys. Kochanska and Knaack (2003) reported that effortful control was a positive predictor of conscience. The association between effortful control and morality has been examined in eight studies. Effortful control was linked to moral cognition and conscience. Results concerning moral emotions seemed to differ, depending on the specific emotion. There was no association between effortful control and moral behavior.
Executive Functions and Morality
Cowell et al. (2015), Reis and Sampaio (2019), Tan et al. (2020), Wang et al. (2021) and Wildeboer et al. (2017) reported that executive functions were not a significant predictor for moral behavior like, sharing, helping, donating or telling the truth. However, Cowell et al. (2017) reported that executive functions were a significant predictor for sharing. Stifter et al. (2009) identified a significant interaction effect between inhibition and moral emotionality with the executive functions acting as a moderator. Inhibited children who demonstrated higher levels of executive functions in preschool age showed less intense emotional responses in moral contexts. Hinnant et al. (2013) and Baker et al. (2021) stated that executive functions alone were not a significant predictor for moral reasoning. However, there was an interaction with emotion regulation or false belief understanding. Children who had low scores in both emotion regulation and executive functions also had lower scores in moral reasoning (Hinnant et al., 2013). Vera-Estay et al. (2016) reported that executive functions and moral reasoning were positively correlated. In contrast, Harari and Weinstock (2021) found no associations. Tan et al. (2020) reported that the ability to delay gratification, as part of executive functions, predicted moral functioning. The association between executive functions and morality has been examined in eleven studies. Executive functions were not linked to moral behavior. Results concerning moral emotions and cognition varied.
Emotion Regulation and Morality
Garner (2012) states that emotion regulation in school age was not correlated with empathic responses or moral transgressions in preschool age. However, emotion regulation in school age was positively correlated with empathy and the willingness of preschoolers to intervene in moral situations. Gummerum and López-Pérez (2020) used frequency analyses to examine the regulation of interpersonal emotions in moral scenarios. Overall, children strive to improve the emotions of the victims and to worsen the emotions of the perpetrators in situations of social exclusion. Hinnant et al. (2013) reported that emotion regulation was not a significant predictor for moral reasoning. Panfile and Laible (2012) identified emotion regulation but not negative emotionality as a positive predictor for empathy. The association between emotion regulation and morality has been examined in four studies. Emotion regulation was not linked to moral cognition and concerning moral emotions the results varied.
Other Aspect of Self-Regulation and Morality
Five studies analyzed aspects of self-regulation that cannot be classified in the scheme used above. Asendorpf and Nunner-Winkler (1992) reported no significant association between ego control and moral motivation and behavior. Tabibi et al. (2016) also reported no significant associations between cognitive self-regulation and moral judgment. LaVoie (1974) conducted an ANOVA and found that children who were more mature in moral judgment tended to show more resistance to deviation. This study was the only one to consider components of morality as independent variables and components of self-regulation as dependent variables. According to Feldman (2007) self-regulated compliance predicted the moral emotion empathy at the age of 13, but not moral cognition. Narvaez et al. (2021) reported that misbehavior only correlated negatively with internalized conduct in a Chinese sample. Additionally, it correlated negatively with empathy in an US sample.
Meta-Analyses of the Associations between Self-Regulation and Morality
While the narrative synthesis focuses primarily on regression analyses, the meta-analyses uses correlation coefficients to ensure a uniform interpretation. A total of k = 53 correlation results (N = 9443) which analyzed the association between self-regulation and the morality of preschool and elementary school children were included in the meta-analysis. Concepts from the same study and research perspectives were amalgamated. Nine studies focus on several research perspectives and components of self-regulation or morality and were therefore included several times (Asendorpf & Nunner-Winkler, 1992; Colasante et al., 2014; Feldman, 2007; Hinnant et al., 2013; Kochanska et al., 1997; Narvaez et al., 2021; Nicolais et al., 2017; Stifter et al., 2009; Tan et al., 2020). Two studies used in the narrative synthesis, neither name any relevant statistical information (Gummerum & López-Pérez, 2020) nor the parameters required to calculate an effect size, (LaVoie, 1974) lead to an exclusion from the meta-analytical calculations.
Baujat plots and influence diagnostics were used to identify studies that strongly contribute to the heterogeneity and to identify studies that do not fit well into the meta-analytical model (Baujat et al., 2002; Harrer et al., 2021). Based on these analyses, the studies by Kochanska et al. (2009), Kochanska and Knaack (2003), Cowell et al. (2017) and Narvaez et al. (2021) were excluded from the meta-analyses.
Fig. 3 shows the forest plot of the associations between self-regulation and morality (k = 46, N = 4990), revealing a small significant effect (Δ = .15, p < .001, 95% CI [.11, .19]). The heterogeneity (Q = 88.44, p < .001, I2 = 49.10%) was assessed as moderate (Higgins & Thompson, 2002; Higgins et al., 2003).
Forest plot for self-regulation and morality
Subgroup Analysis
The results of the subgroup analyses are shown in Table 2. The analyses regarding the study characteristics: age (QContrast = 3.87, pContrast = .144), quality of the study (QContrast = 0.10, pContrast = .749), measurement of self-regulation (QContrast = 0.11, pContrast = .737) and morality (QContrast = 1.18, pContrast = .278) did not reveal any significant differences (see Table 2). There were also no differences (QContrast = 0.15, pContrast = .696) with regard to longitudinal (Δ = .16, p < .001, 95% CI [.10, .23], k = 20, n = 1706) and cross-sectional studies (Δ = .15, p < .001, 95% CI [.09, .20], k = 26, n = 3284). However, there were significant differences in the subgroup analyses focusing on the continents (QContrast = 9.74, pContrast = .021), the sample power (QContrast = 60.66, pContrast < .001) as well as the different constructs of self-regulation (QContrast = 8.05, pContrast = .045) and morality (QContrast = 9.50, pContrast = .050; see Table 2).
With regard to the continents, a small effect in the subgroup North America (Δ = .17, p < .001, 95% CI [.12, .22], k = 29, n = 2917) with small to moderate heterogeneity (Q = 47.02, p = .014, I2 = 40.40%) was found. There was also a small effect (Δ = .11, p = .039, 95% CI [.01, .20], k = 10, n = 1347) with moderate heterogeneity (Q = 21.70, p = .01, I2 = 58.50%) in the subgroup Europe. For Asia, no significant effect (Δ = .08, p = .156) was detected. Since there was only one study in the subgroup South America, the analysis could not be carried out.
Analyzing the subgroups in terms of sample power, results showed that analyses with an underpowered sample had a small effect (Δ = .10, p < .001, 95% CI [.06, .14], k = 36, n = 3883) and analyses with sufficient power had a medium effect (Δ = .31, p < .001, 95% CI [.26, .35], k = 10, n = 1107). Both subgroups showed homogeneity (Underpowered: Q = 43.54, p = .152, I2 = 19.60%; Enough Power: Q = 4.31, p = .890, I2 = 0.00%).
The results according to the various aspects of self-regulation suggest that the subgroup that associated emotion regulation with morality showed the greatest effect (Δ = .30, p = .03, 95% CI [.07, .49], k = 3, n = 197). The subgroup is assessed as homogeneous (Q = 4.31, p = .562, I2 = 0.0%). The second largest effect was shown by the subgroup that linked temperament-related self-regulation with morality (Δ = .15, p < .001, 95% CI [.09, .21], k = 26, n = 2787), with moderate heterogeneity (Q = 52.20, p = .001, I2 = 52.10%). Self-regulation with regard to executive functions showed the lowest significant effect (Δ = .14, p = .005, 95% CI [.05, .23], k = 12, n = 1558) and medium heterogeneity (Q = 25.21, p = .009, I2 = 56.40%). The aspects of self-regulation that could not be assigned to any of these conceptions showed no significant effect (Δ = .11, p = .092).
The results for the subgroup analyses of variables on morality suggest that moral behavior (Δ = .14, p = .001, 95% CI [.07, .21], k = 16, n = 1787), moral emotions (Δ = .16, p = .005, 95% CI [.06, .26], k = 11, n = 1229) moral cognition (Δ = .13, p = .021, 95% CI [.02, .23], k = 11, n = 1151) and aspects of morality that could not be assigned to any of these conceptions (Δ = .13, p = .020, 95% CI [.03, .23], k = 6, n = 643) were significantly associated with self-regulation. Conscience (Δ = .33, p = .114) showed no significant effect. In the subgroup of moral behavior (Q = 28.71, p = .018, I2 = 47.70%), moral cognition (Q = 23.16, p = .010, I2 = 56.80%) as well as in moral emotions (Q = 23.12, p = .010, I2 = 56.70%), moderate heterogeneity was found. The subgroup of the aspects of morality that could not be assigned to any conception is assessed as homogeneous (Q = 4.92, p = .426, I2 = 0.00%).
Publication bias
Egger’s regression test (z = 1.32, p = .187) and the rank correlation test (τ = 0.11, p = .280) for funnel plot symmetry were carried out (see Fig. 4). Since neither of the two results were significant nor visual analysis revealed asymmetry, no evidence of publication bias could be found (Begg & Mazumdar, 1994; Egger et al., 1997). The fail-safe N (observed level of significance: p < .0001, target level of significance: p = .05, fail-safe N = 1811) does not indicate any publication bias either (Rosenthal, 1979).
Funnel plot
Differentiated meta-Analyses
Table 3 shows several smaller meta-analyses with independent samples. These differentiated meta-analyses were carried out if at least two studies (k = 2) that could be meaningfully combined depending on the research perspective and forms of the constructs were available (Ryan, 2016; Valentine et al., 2010). In line with the narrative synthesis, there was only a small significant combined effect regarding the relationship between temperament-related aspects of self-regulation and moral behavior (Δ = .17, p = .007, 95% CI [.06, .28], k = 9, n = 874), as well as moral emotions (Δ = .15, p = .017, 95% CI [.03, .25], k = 9, n = 1099). Moderate heterogeneity can be reported for both meta-analyses. The correlations between executive functions and moral behavior (Δ = .11, p = .119) or moral cognition (Δ = .21, p = .095) were not significant. Additionally, there were no significant correlations between temperament-related aspects of self-regulation and moral cognition (Δ = .05, p = .520).
Discussion
The narrative synthesis has shown that both self-regulation and morality can be viewed from different scientific perspectives. Despite various research orientations, definitions and operationalizations, overlaps were also identified. Most included studies focused on temperament-related aspects of self-regulation and associated them with moral behavior and moral emotions. The executive functions were also analyzed with moral behavior. There were less research results regarding the connections between emotion regulation and morality, indicating a research gap. Some overlaps have been identified concerning the temperament-related aspects of self-regulation and the executive functions (see Table 1). Both consider inhibitory control which involve the inhibition of a prepotent or dominant reactions (dos Santos et al., 2020; Hinnant et al., 2013; Jambon et al., 2021; Kim-Spoon et al., 2019; Kochanska et al., 2009; Kochanska & Knaack, 2003; Stifter et al., 2009). From the perspective of temperament research, inhibitory control is also an aspect of effortful control. Effortful control, in turn, also represents cognitive components of executive functions such as executive attention (Kim-Spoon et al., 2019; Nigg, 2017). Nigg (2017) highlights that effortful control can be understood as a representation at the trait level of the use of cognitive control for self-regulation. Rademacher and Koglin (2019) emphasize that further research could focus on the interrelation of executive function and effortful control to contribute to a unified labelling and the resolution of conceptual overlaps (Rademacher & Koglin, 2019). This could also help to better understand the construct of self-regulation in the context of morality and build up a theoretical framework.
The meta-analyses took a closer look at the quantitative associations. In line with our hypothesis, there is a small and positive significant effect for the association between self-regulation and morality. Results focusing on the aspects of self-regulation revealed that the subgroup that associated emotion regulation with morality showed the greatest effects. The regulation of emotions is involved in the upregulation of sympathy and empathy. These two emotions are positively related to moral reasoning, because they make it easier to take on the perspective and to understand the needs of others. Furthermore, emotion regulation is involved in the downregulation of personal distress or jealousy. These emotions, on the other hand, can disrupt moral cognition if they are not properly regulated (Hinnant et al., 2013). Therefore, well-developed emotion regulation skills in the context of moral conflicts can contribute to acting morally. Otherwise, high empathic arousal could lead to personal distress, which leads to all cognitive resources consequently being used to reduce the distress rather than acting moral (Eisenberg & Fabes, 2006; Garner, 2012; Panfile & Laible, 2012). This leads to the practical implication that emotion regulation strategies should be promoted, as they could have a positive effect on morality, especially on the perception of moral emotions.
Furthermore, analyses revealed small and positive significant combined effects regarding the association between temperament-related aspects of self-regulation and moral behavior as well as moral emotions in the differentiated meta-analysis. According to dos Santos et al. (2020) the temperamental aspect of effortful control can contribute to inhibiting actions which are inappropriate from a moral point of view, e.g., deliberately harming someone. Conversely, prosocial and moral behavior can easier be carried out (Evans & Rothbart, 2007; Rothbart et al., 2001). Contrarily, Stifter et al. (2009) stated that temperament-related aspects of self-regulation were negatively associated with moral emotions and moral behavior. They assumed that inhibited children are motivated by arousal and discomfort. This, in turn, can impair the ability to feel and understand other people’s emotions. In terms of temperamental inhibition, there seems to be a fine line between too little and too much inhibition. On the one hand, inhibition can help to inhibit undesirable behavior, on the other hand, too much inhibition can inhibit the perception of emotions like empathy. The predictive value of affective temperament is also discussed as a possible contributor to negative clinical outcomes (Baldessarini et al., 2017). Furthermore, Stifter et al. (2009) stated that executive functions can help to reduce low empathy of inhibited children. Studies should look more closely at the role of temperamental inhibition and the interaction with executive functions in the context of moral behavior and emotions.
Subgroup analyses detecting sources of heterogeneity revealed differences with regard to the continents. These results are in line with the findings of other studies that have already found cultural differences regarding morality (Cowell et al., 2017; Myyry et al., 2021; Sachdeva et al., 2011). These differences should be considered in future analyses.
This systematic review and meta-analysis intents to contribute to a uniform labelling of the terminology relating to constructs of self-regulation and to resolute conceptual overlaps. Furthermore, the review illustrated that different constructs of self-regulation have different impacts on the constructs of morality, highlighting the importance of a differentiated view.
Limitations
The results of these investigations are to be interpreted considering some limitations. Missing information on effect sizes that were reported as being insignificant were set to zero. Even if this approach is conservative, it can underestimate the mean effect size of the population and overestimate the effect size variance (Peterson & Brown, 2005; Pigott, 1994). The combination of effect sizes within the included studies could have the disadvantage of a possible loss of information due to a smaller number of effect sizes. Due to the sometimes-small sample sizes and possible sample data overlaps between the subgroups, the results should be interpreted with caution (Beelmann & Bliesener, 1994).
The central search term used to identify the most important studies was “moral*”. Moreover, the self-conscious moral emotions (guilt, shame, empathy, sympathy, jealousy, pride and embarrassment) were additionally used. Further analyses should also consider (precursor) skills related to morality such as the ability to be empathic, perspective taking, understanding emotions, theory of mind or false belief understanding (Baker et al., 2021). For this purpose, broader search terms are necessary.
Appendix A shows the evaluation of the quality of the included studies. This reveals some methodological restrictions that should also be considered when interpreting the results. Many of the included studies did not specify or define the study population. Only a few studies justified their sample size. Samples that were too small and with insufficient power may fail to detect effects and lead to a reporting bias. In line with this, subgroup analysis of sample power revealed that the studies with enough power (> .80) reported stronger effects between self-regulation and morality than studies with underpowered samples (< .80). Hence it is highly recommended to check and report the a priori sample size justifications (Faul et al., 2007, 2009; Nayak, 2010). Additionally, it should be noted that only 12 of the included studies used a longitudinal study design and only ten of them were classified as good in the quality assessment (NHLBI, 2021). Accordingly, from a methodological point of view, little is known about the longitudinal relationship between self-regulation and moral development. In order to clarify the importance of self-regulation for the moral development of preschool and elementary school children, more longitudinal research and research with greater samples are required. The strengths of many studies were the consideration of different levels of exposure and confounder variables (NHLBI, 2021).
Conclusion and Further Research
A small positive association between self-regulation and morality could be identified, especially between temperament-related self-regulation and moral behavior and emotions. Considering the heterogeneous initial situation described, further studies that examine the relationship between self-regulation and morality are essential. For this purpose, coherent definitions of self-regulation and morality are requisite. On the one hand, there are research gaps regarding the associations between emotion regulation and morality and, on the other hand, the reported results are not homogeneous. Further research should also focus on behavioral inhibition and emotion regulation. Several studies detected behavioral inhibition as a predictor of social anxiety (Clauss & Blackford, 2012; Sandstrom et al., 2020). Behavioral inhibition is characterized by fear and shyness (Kagan, 1989). Inhibited and anxious children may experience moral situations with peers as extremely distressing which in turn may lead to excessive demand and functional impairment (Clauss & Blackford, 2012). In this context, emotion regulation could also become relevant. When children are unable to regulate emotions or the capacity to regulate emotions is reduced, active emotions may inhibit cognitive processes. This could, for example, affect moral cognition and emotions (Garner, 2012; Hinnant et al., 2013; Panfile & Laible, 2012). Poor emotional regulation skills could be associated with personal distress, as the adequate coping strategies to alleviate one’s own emotions are missing (Eisenberg et al., 1996; Panfile & Laible, 2012).
It is also noteworthy that some authors and working groups are focusing on the topic repetitively. In this systematic review, for example, studies by Kochanska and colleagues were included five times (Kochanska et al., 1994, 1996, 1997, 2009; Kochanska & Knaack, 2003), Colasante and colleagues (Colasante et al., 2014, 2015; Jambon et al., 2021) three times, Stifter and colleagues (Augustine & Stifter, 2015; Stifter et al., 2009), Smetana and colleagues (Smetana et al., 2012; Yoo & Smetana, 2021) and Cowell et al. (2015, 2017) twice each. The results can therefore be dependent on the research perspective and the theoretical conceptions of the respective authors and working groups. In order to expand the research landscape of self-regulation and morality in preschool and elementary age school children, it is necessary that more researchers with different perspectives focus on the topic.
It becomes clear that different research perspectives should be considered. A combination of several constructs of self-regulation as discussed by Stifter et al. (2009) and Hinnant et al. (2013) could be a meaningful approach to detected which regulatory processes are involved in context of morality. Rademacher and Koglin (2019) also propose an integrative model of self-regulation, in which executive functions and effortful control could be analyzed at the same time and in which overlaps, and unique aspects of self-regulation should be considered. Global and integrative models are also proposed with regard to moral development (Malti & Keller, 2010; Oser, 2013). Oser’s (2013) global moral motivation model attempts to explain why individuals act morally by considering, for example, moral visions, beliefs, motives, and the sense of duty. Even if moral values and norms have been internalized by individuals, it is still possible that they act contrary to them. Self-regulation can play a decisive role in this context and can be used as an explanatory approach. Jambon et al. (2021) for example discuss the importance of inhibitory control for preschoolers regarding “control” hypothesis. Children with happy victimizer tendencies may show difficulties suppressing immediate satisfaction of needs. They focus on the desired reward rather than the moral concern. Facilitating self-control may be key to unlocking the moral responses children internalized and are capable of (Jambon et al., 2021). In an integrative model, the various aspects of self-regulation could be considered in order to analyze the relevance for the various constructs of morality. This review and meta-analysis offers a first reference point for future research; to consider the importance of emotion regulation and temperamental aspects of self-regulation for moral emotions and action in an integrative approach.
Data Availability
The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are not publicly available due to copyright policies but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request, and with permission of relevant third parties.
References
Studies from Narrative Synthesis Are Marked*
Ahadi, S. A., Rothbart, M. K., & Ye, R. (1993). Children's temperament in the US and China: Similarities and differences. European Journal of Personality, 7(5), 359–378. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2410070506
Aksan, N., & Kochanska, G. (2004). Links between systems of inhibition from infancy to preschool years. Child Development, 75(5), 1477–1490. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00752.x
Arsenio, W. F., & Fleiss, K. (1996). Typical and behaviourally disruptive children's understanding of the emotional consequences of socio-moral events. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 14(2), 173–186. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-835X.1996.tb00700.x
Asendorpf, J. B. (1990). Development of inhibition during childhood: Evidence for situational specificity and a two-factor model. Developmental Psychology, 26(5), 721–730. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.26.5.721
*Asendorpf, J. B., & Nunner-Winkler, G. (1992). Children's moral motive strength and temperamental inhibition reduce their immoral behavior in real moral conflicts. Child Development, 63(5), 1223–1235. https://doi.org/10.2307/1131529.
*Augustine, M. E., & Stifter, C. A. (2015). Temperament, parenting, and moral development: Specificity of behavior and context. Social Development, 24(2), 285–303. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12092.
*Baker, E. R., D’Esterre, A. P., & Weaver, J. P. (2021). Executive function and theory of mind in explaining young children’s moral reasoning: A test of the hierarchical competing systems model. Cognitive Development, 58, e101035. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2021.101035.
Balamore, U., & Wozniak, R. H. (1984). Speech-action coordination in young children. Developmental Psychology, 20(5), 850–858. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.20.5.850
Baldessarini, R. J., Innamorati, M., Erbuto, D., Serafini, G., Fiorillo, A., Amore, M., Girardi, P., & Pompili, M. (2017). Differential associations of affective temperaments and diagnosis of major affective disorders with suicidal behavior. Journal of Affective Disorders, 210, 19–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2016.12.003
Balduzzi, S., Rücker, G., & Schwarzer, G. (2019). How to perform a meta-analysis with R: A practical tutorial. Evidence-Based Mental Health, 22(4), 153–160. https://doi.org/10.1136/ebmental-2019-300117
Ballespí, S., Jané, M. C., & Riba, M. D. (2012). Parent and teacher ratings of temperamental disposition to social anxiety: The BIS 3–6. Journal of Personality Assessment, 94(2), 164–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2011.645929
Bandura, A. (2002). Social cognitive theory in cultural context. Applied Psychology, 51(2), 269–290. https://doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597.00092
Baujat, B., Mahé, C., Pignon, J. P., & Hill, C. (2002). A graphical method for exploring heterogeneity in meta-analyses: Application to a meta-analysis of 65 trials. Statistics in Medicine, 21(18), 2641–2652. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.1221
Beauchamp, M. H., Dooley, J. J., & Anderson, V. (2013). A preliminary investigation of moral reasoning and empathy after traumatic brain injury in adolescents. Brain Injury, 27(7–8), 896–902. https://doi.org/10.3109/02699052.2013.775486
Beelmann, A., & Bliesener, T. (1994). Aktuelle Probleme und Strategien der Metaanalyse [current problems and strategies of meta-analysis]. Psychologische Rundschau, 45(4), 211–233.
Begg, C. B., & Mazumdar, M. (1994). Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics, 50(4), 1088–1101. https://doi.org/10.2307/2533446
Benenson, J. F., Pascoe, J., & Radmore, N. (2007). Children's altruistic behavior in the dictator game. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28(3), 168–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2006.10.003
Berger, A., Kofman, O., Livneh, U., & Henik, A. (2007). Multidisciplinary perspectives on attention and the development of self-regulation. Progress in Neurobiology, 82(5), 256–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pneurobio.2007.06.004
Bishop, G., Spence, S. H., & McDonald, C. (2003). Can parents and teachers provide a reliable and valid report of behavioral inhibition? Child Development, 74(6), 1899–1917. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1467-8624.2003.00645.x
Blake, P. R., & Rand, D. G. (2010). Currency value moderates equity preference among young children. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31(3), 210–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2009.06.012
Blasi, A. (2013). The self and the management of the moral life. In K. Heinrichs, F. Oser, & T. Lovat (Eds.), Handbook of moral motivation: Theories, models, applications (pp. 229–284). Sense Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6209-275-4_14
Block, J. H., & Block, J. (1980). The role of ego control and ego resiliency in the organization of behavior. In W. A. Collins (Ed.), Minnesota symposium on child psychology (Vol. Vol. 13, pp. 39–101). Erlbaum. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315803029
Bryant, B. K. (1982). An index of empathy for children and adolescents. Child Development, 53(2), 413–425. https://doi.org/10.2307/1128984
Bryan, C. J., Master, A., & Walton, G. M. (2014). “Helping” versus “being a helper”: Invoking the self to increase helping in young children. Child Development, 85(5), 1836–1842. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12244
Capaldi, D. M., & Rothbart, M. K. (1992). Development and validation of an early adolescent temperament measure. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 12(2), 153–173. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431692012002002
Carlson, S. M., Moses, L. J., & Breton, C. (2002). How specific is the relation between executive function and theory of mind? Contributions of inhibitory control and working memory. Infant and Child Development, 11(2), 73–92. https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.298
Chasiotis, A., Kiessling, F., Hofer, J., & Campos, D. (2006). Theory of mind and inhibitory control in three cultures: Conflict inhibition predicts false belief understanding in Germany, Costa Rica and Cameroon. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 30(3), 249–260. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025406066759
Christensen, J. F., & Gomila, A. (2012). Moral dilemmas in cognitive neuroscience of moral decision-making: A principled review. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 36(4), 1249–1264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2012.02.008
Cialdini, R. B., Eisenberg, N., Shell, R., & McCreath, H. (1987). Commitments to help by children: Effects on subsequent prosocial self-attributions. British Journal of Social Psychology, 26(3), 237–245. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1987.tb00785.x
Clauss, J. A., & Blackford, J. U. (2012). Behavioral inhibition and risk for developing social anxiety disorder: A meta-analytic study. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 51(10), 1066–1075. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2012.08.002
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203771587
*Colasante, T., Zuffianò, A., Bae, N. Y., & Malti, T. (2014). Inhibitory control and moral emotions: Relations to reparation in early and middle childhood. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 175(6), 511–527. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221325.2014.976535.
*Colasante, T., Zuffianò, A., & Malti, T. (2015). Do moral emotions buffer the anger-aggression link in children and adolescents? Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 41, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2015.06.001.
*Cornell, A. H., & Frick, P. J. (2007). The moderating effects of parenting styles in the association between behavioral inhibition and parent-reported guilt and empathy in preschool children. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 36(3), 305–318. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374410701444181.
Costin, S. E., & Jones, D. C. (1992). Friendship as a facilitator of emotional responsiveness and prosocial interventions among young children. Developmental Psychology, 28(5), 941–947. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.28.5.941
*Cowell, J. M., Samek, A., List, J., & Decety, J. (2015). The curious relation between theory of mind and sharing in preschool age children. PLoS One, 10(2), e0117947. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0117947.
*Cowell, J. M., Lee, K., Malcolm-Smith, S., Selcuk, B., Zhou, X. Y., & Decety, J. (2017). The development of generosity and moral cognition across five cultures. Developmental Science, 20(4), e12403. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12403.
Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1996). Social information-processing mechanisms in reactive and proactive aggression. Child Development, 67(3), 993–1002. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1996.tb01778.x
Davis, M. H. (1996). Empathy: A social psychological approach. Westview Press.
Delis, D. C., Kaplan, E., & Kramer, J. H. (2001). Delis-Kaplan executive function system. The Psychological Corporation.
Denham, S. A. (1998). Emotional development in young children. Guilford Press.
Denham, S. A., Bassett, H. H., Zinsser, K., & Wyatt, T. M. (2014). How preschoolers' social–emotional learning predicts their early school success: Developing theory-promoting, competency-based assessments. Infant and Child Development, 23(4), 426–454. https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.1840
Diamond, A. (2013). Executive functions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 135–168. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143750
Diamond, A., & Taylor, C. (1996). Development of an aspect of executive control: Development of the abilities to remember what I said and to “do as I say, not as I do.” Developmental Psychobiology, 29(4), 315–334.
*Dong, S., Dubas, J. S., Deković, M., & Wang, Z. (2021). Cool and hot effortful control moderate how parenting predicts child internalization in Chinese families. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 206, e105099. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2021.105099.
Dooley, J. J., Beauchamp, M., & Anderson, V. A. (2010). The measurement of sociomoral reasoning in adolescents with traumatic brain injury: A pilot investigation. Brain Impairment, 11(2), 152–161. https://doi.org/10.1375/brim.11.2.152
*dos Santos, M. A., Castro, J. M. d. F. L., Pinto, C. S. d. F. L. (2020). The moral emotions of guilt and shame in children: Relationship with parenting and temperament. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 29(10), 2759–2769. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-020-01766-6.
Dunfield, K. A., & Kuhlmeier, V. A. (2013). Classifying prosocial behavior: Children's responses to instrumental need, emotional distress, and material desire. Child Development, 84(5), 1766–1776. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12075
Eder, R. A. (1990). Uncovering young children's psychological selves: Individual and developmental differences. Child Development, 61(3), 849–863. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1990.tb02827.x
Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997). Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ, 315(7109), 629–634. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629
Eisenberg, N. (1982). The development of reasoning about prosocial behavior. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), The development of prosocial behavior (pp. 219–249). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-234980-5.50014-6
Eisenberg, N. (2000). Emotion, regulation, and moral development. Annual Review of Psychology, 51(1), 665–697. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.665
Eisenberg, N. (2005). The development of empathy-related responding. In G. Carlo & C. P. Edwards (Eds.), Moral motivation through the life span (pp. 73–117). University of Nebraska Press.
Eisenberg, N. (2017). Commentary: What’s in a word (or words) – On the relations among self-regulation, self-control, executive functioning, effortful control, cognitive control, impulsivity, risk-taking, and inhibition for developmental psychopathology – Reflections on Nigg (2017). Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 58(4), 384–386. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12707
Eisenberg, N., & Fabes, R. A. (2006). Emotion regulation and children's socioemotional competence. In L. Balter & C. S. Tamis-LeMonda (Eds.), Child psychology: A handbook of contemporary issues (Vol. 2, pp. 357–381). Psychology Press.
Eisenberg, N., & Miller, P. A. (1987). The relation of empathy to prosocial and related behaviors. Psychological Bulletin, 101(1), 91–119 https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.101.1.91.
Eisenberg, N., & Spinrad, T. L. (2004). Emotion-related regulation: Sharpening the definition. Child Development, 75(2), 334–339. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00674.x
Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Murphy, B., Karbon, M., Smith, M., & Maszk, P. (1996). The relations of children's dispositional empathy-related responding to their emotionality, regulation, and social functioning. Developmental Psychology, 32(2), 195–209. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.32.2.195
Eisenberg, N., Guthrie, I. K., Fabes, R. A., Shepard, S., Losoya, S., Murphy, B., Jones, S., Poulin, R., & Reiser, M. (2000). Prediction of elementary school children's externalizing problem behaviors from attentional and behavioral regulation and negative emotionality. Child Development, 71(5), 1367–1382. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00233
Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Guthrie, I. K., & Reiser, M. (2002). The role of emotionality and regulation in children's social competence and adjustment. In L. Pulkkinen & A. Caspi (Eds.), Paths to successful development: Personality in the life course (pp. 46–70). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511489761.003
Eisenberg, N., Smith, C. L., Sadovsky, A., & Spinrad, T. L. (2004). Effortful control: Relations with emotion regulation, adjustment, and socialization in childhood. In R. F. Baumeister & K. D. Vohs (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications (pp. 259–282). Guilford.
Eisenberg, N., Valiente, C., Spinrad, T. L., Cumberland, A., Liew, J., Reiser, M., Zhou, Q., & Losoya, S. H. (2009). Longitudinal relations of children’s effortful control, impulsivity, and negative emotionality to their externalizing, internalizing, and co-occurring behavior problems. Developmental Psychology, 45(4), 988–1008. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016213
Eisenberg-Berg, N., & Hand, M. (1979). The relationship of preschoolers' reasoning about prosocial moral conflicts to prosocial behavior. Child Development, 50(2), 356–363. https://doi.org/10.2307/1129410
Ellis, P. D. (2010). The essential guide to effect sizes: Statistical power, meta-analysis, and the interpretation of research results. Cambridge university press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511761676
Evans, D. E., & Rothbart, M. K. (2007). Developing a model for adult temperament. Journal of Research in Personality, 41(4), 868–888. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2006.11.002
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149
*Feldman, R. (2007). Mother-infant synchrony and the development of moral orientation in childhood and adolescence: Direct and indirect mechanisms of developmental continuity. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 77(4), 582–597. https://doi.org/10.1037/0002-9432.77.4.582.
Feldman, S. S., & Sarnat, L. (1986). Israeli town and kibbutz toddlers' compliance and adults' control attempts. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 32(4), 365–382.
Ferguson, T. J., Stegge, H., Miller, E. R., & Olsen, M. E. (1999). Guilt, shame, and symptoms in children. Developmental Psychology, 35(2), 347–357. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.35.2.347
Frick, P. J. (2001). Effective interventions for children and adolescents with conduct disorder. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 46(7), 597–608. https://doi.org/10.1177/070674370104600703
Funder, D. C., Block, J. H., & Block, J. (1983). Delay of gratification: Some longitudinal personality correlates. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(6), 1198–1213. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.44.6.1198
*Garner, P. W. (2012). Children's emotional responsiveness and sociomoral understanding and associations with mothers' and fathers' socialization practices. Infant Mental Health Journal, 33(1), 95–106. https://doi.org/10.1002/imhj.20339.
Garner, P. W., Jones, D. C., & Palmer, D. J. (1994). Social cognitive correlates of preschool children's sibling caregiving behavior. Developmental Psychology, 30(6), 905–911. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.30.6.905
Gerstadt, C. L., Hong, Y. J., & Diamond, A. (1994). The relationship between cognition and action: Performance of children 312–7 years old on a stroop-like day-night test. Cognition, 53(2), 129–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(94)90068-X
Gleason, T., Narvaez, D., Cheng, Y., Wang, L., & Brooks, J. (2016). Well-being and sociomoral development in preschoolers: The role of maternal parenting attitudes consistent with the evolved developmental niche. In D. Narvaez, J. Braungart-Rieker, L. Miller, L. Gettler, & P. Hastings (Eds.), Contexts for young child flourishing: Evolution, family and society (pp. 166–184). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190237790.003.0008
Goldsmith, H. H., & Reilly, J. (1992). The preschool laboratory temperament assessment battery. University of Wisconsin.
Goldsmith, H. H., & Rothbart, M. K. (1991). Contemporary instruments for assessing early temperament by questionnaire and in the laboratory. In J. Strelau & A. Angleitner (Eds.), Explorations in temperament. Perspectives on individual differences (pp. 249–272). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-0643-4_16
Göttert, R., & Asendorpf, J. (1989). Eine deutsche version des California-child-Q-Sort: Kurzform [a German version of the California-child-Q-Sort: Short form]. Zeitschrift für Entwicklungspsychologie und Pädagogische Psychologie, 21(1), 70–82.
Grolnick, W. S., & Farkas, M. (2002). Parenting and the development of children’s self-regulation. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Practical issues in parenting (Vol. 2, pp. 89–111). Erlbaum.
Guerra, N. G., Nucci, L., & Huesmann, L. R. (1994). Moral cognition and childhood aggression. In L. R. Huesmann (Ed.), Aggressive behavior: Current perspectives (pp. 13–33). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-9116-7_2
*Gummerum, M., & López-Pérez, B. (2020). “You shouldn't feel this way!” Children's and adolescents’ interpersonal emotion regulation of victims’ and violators’ feelings after social exclusion. Cognitive Development, 54, 100874. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2020.100874.
Gummerum, M., Hanoch, Y., Keller, M., Parsons, K., & Hummel, A. (2010). Preschoolers’ allocations in the dictator game: The role of moral emotions. Journal of Economic Psychology, 31(1), 25–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2009.09.002
*Harari, Y., & Weinstock, M. (2021). Interpretive theory of mind and empathic prosocial moral reasoning. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 39(1), 78–97. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjdp.12345.
Harrer, M., Cuijpers, P., Furukawa, T. A., & Ebert, D. D. (2021). Doing meta-analysis with R: A hands-on guide. Chapmann & Hall/CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003107347
Higgins, J. P., & Thompson, S. G. (2002). Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine, 21(11), 1539–1558. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.1186
Higgins, J. P., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003). Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ, 327(7414), 557–560. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557
*Hinnant, J. B., Nelson, J. A., O'Brien, M., Keane, S. P., & Calkins, S. D. (2013). The interactive roles of parenting, emotion regulation and executive functioning in moral reasoning during middle childhood. Cognition and Emotion, 27(8), 1460–1468. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2013.789792.
Hoffman, M. L. (1990). Empathy and justice motivation. Motivation and Emotion, 14(2), 151–172. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00991641
Hoffman, M. L. (2000). Empathy and moral development: Implications for caring and justice. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511805851
Holmgren, R., Eisenberg, N., & Fabes, R. (1998). The relations of children’s situational empathy-related emotions to dispositional prosocial behavior. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 22, 169–193. https://doi.org/10.1080/016502598384568
van Ijzendoorn, M. H., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., Pannebakker, F., & Out, D. (2010). In defence of situational morality: Genetic, dispositional and situational determinants of children’s donating to charity. Journal of Moral Education, 39(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240903528535
*Jambon, M., Colasante, T., & Malti, T. (2021). A longitudinal investigation of the happy victimizer tendency in childhood: A matter of control or care? Developmental Psychology, 57(5), 689–701. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0001176.
Kagan, J. (1989). Temperamental contributions to social behavior. American Psychologist, 44(4), 668–674. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.44.4.668
Killen, M., Mulvey, K. L., Richardson, C., Jampol, N., & Woodward, A. (2011). The accidental transgressor: Morally-relevant theory of mind. Cognition, 119(2), 197–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2011.01.006
Kim-Spoon, J., Deater-Deckard, K., Calkins, S. D., King-Casas, B., & Bell, M. A. (2019). Commonality between executive functioning and effortful control related to adjustment. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 60, 47–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2018.10.004
Kochanska, G. (1993). Toward a synthesis of parental socialization and child temperament in early development of conscience. Child Development, 64(2), 325–347. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1993.tb02913.x
Kochanska, G. (2002). Committed compliance, moral self, and internalization: A mediational model. Developmental Psychology, 38(3), 339–351. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.38.3.339
Kochanska, G., & Aksan, N. (2006). Children's conscience and self-regulation. Journal of Personality, 74(6), 1587–1618. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2006.00421.x
*Kochanska, G., & Knaack, A. (2003). Effortful control as a personality characteristic of young children: Antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of Personality, 71(6), 1087–1112. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.7106008.
*Kochanska, G., DeVet, K., Goldman, M., Murray, K., & Putnam, S. P. (1994). Maternal reports of conscience development and temperament in young children. Child Development, 65(3), 852–868. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1994.tb00788.x.
*Kochanska, G., Murray, K., Jacques, T. Y., Koenig, A. L., & Vandegeest, K. A. (1996). Inhibitory control in young children and its role in emerging internalization. Child Development, 67(2), 490–507. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1996.tb01747.x.
*Kochanska, G., Murray, K., & Coy, K. C. (1997). Inhibitory control as a contributor to conscience in childhood: From toddler to early school age. Child Development, 68(2), 263–277. https://doi.org/10.2307/1131849.
Kochanska, G., Murray, K. T., & Harlan, E. T. (2000). Effortful control in early childhood: Continuity and change, antecedents, and implications for social development. Developmental Psychology, 36(2), 220–232. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.36.2.220
Kochanska, G., Coy, K. C., & Murray, K. T. (2001). The development of self-regulation in the first four years of life. Child Development, 72(4), 1091–1111. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00336
Kochanska, G., Gross, J. N., Lin, M. H., & Nichols, K. E. (2002). Guilt in young children: Development, determinants, and relations with a broader system of standards. Child Development, 73(2), 461–482. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00418
Kochanska, G., Aksan, N., Penney, S. J., & Doobay, A. F. (2007). Early positive emotionality as a heterogenous trait: Implications for children's self-regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(6), 1054–1066. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.6.1054
*Kochanska, G., Barry, R. A., Jimenez, N. B., Hollatz, A. L., & Woodard, J. (2009). Guilt and effortful control: Two mechanisms that prevent disruptive developmental trajectories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(2), 322–333. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015471.
Kohlberg, L. (1981). The philosophy of moral development: Moral stages and the idea of justice. Harper & Row.
Korkman, M., Kirk, U., & Kemp, S. L. (2007). NEPSY II. Clinical and interpretative manual. Psychological Corporation.
Korkman, M., Kirk, U., & Kemp, S. L. (2010). Technische Handleiding NEPSY-II-NL [clinical and interpretative manual NEPSY-II-NL]. Ipskamp.
Lagattuta, K. H., Sayfan, L., & Monsour, M. (2011). A new measure for assessing executive function across a wide age range: Children and adults find happy-sad more difficult than day-night. Developmental Science, 14(3), 481–489. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2010.00994.x
*LaVoie, J. C. (1974). Cognitive determinants of resistance to deviation in seven-, nine-, and eleven-year-old children in low and high maturity of moral judgment. Developmental Psychology, 10(3), 393–403. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0036426.
Lewis, M. (2000). Self-conscious emotions: Embarrassment, pride, shame, and guilt. In M. Lewis & J. M. Haviland-Jones (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (pp. 623–636). Guilford Press. https://doi.org/10.1891/0889-8391.15.3.281
Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis (Vol. 49). Sage publications, Inc..
Lotze, G. M., Ravindran, N., & Myers, B. J. (2010). Moral emotions, emotion self-regulation, callous-unemotional traits, and problem behavior in children of incarcerated mothers. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 19(6), 702–713. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-010-9358-7
Maccoby, E. E., Dowley, E. M., Hagen, J. W., & Degerman, R. (1965). Activity level and intellectual functioning in normal preschool children. Child Development, 36(3), 761–770. https://doi.org/10.2307/1126921
Malti, T., & Keller, M. (2010). The development of moral emotions in a cultural context. In W. F. Arsenio & E. A. Lemerise (Eds.), Emotions, aggression, and morality in children: Bridging development and psychopathology (pp. 177–198). American Psychological Association doi.org/10.1037/12129-009
Malti, T., & Ongley, S. (2014). The development of moral emotions and moral reasoning. In M. Killen & J. Smetana (Eds.), Handbook of moral development (pp. 163–183). Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203581957-19
Martel, M. M., Nigg, J. T., Wong, M. M., Fitzgerald, H. E., Jester, J. M., Puttler, L. I., Glass, J. M., Adams, K. M., & Zucker, R. A. (2007). Childhood and adolescent resiliency, regulation, and executive functioning in relation to adolescent problems and competence in a high-risk sample. Development and Psychopathology, 19(2), 541–563. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579407070265
McClelland, M. M., Cameron, C. E., Connor, C. M., Farris, C. L., Jewkes, A. M., & Morrison, F. J. (2007). Links between behavioral regulation and preschoolers’ literacy, vocabulary, and math skills. Developmental Psychology, 43(4), 947–959. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.43.4.947
Mischel, W., & Ebbesen, E. B. (1970). Attention in delay of gratification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16(2), 329–337. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0029815
Mischel, W., Ebbesen, E. B., & Raskoff Zeiss, A. (1972). Cognitive and attentional mechanisms in delay of gratification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 21(2), 204–218. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0032198
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & Prisma Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine, 6(7), e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
*Muris, P., Meesters, C., Bouwman, L., & Notermans, S. (2015). Relations among behavioral inhibition, shame-and guilt-proneness, and anxiety disorders symptoms in non-clinical children. Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 46(2), 209–216. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-014-0457-3.
Myyry, L., Helkama, K., Silfver-Kuhalampi, M., Petkova, K., Valentim, J. P., & Liik, K. (2021). Explorations in reported moral behaviors, values, and moral emotions in four countries. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, e661172. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.661172
*Narvaez, D., Gleason, T., Tarsha, M., Woodbury, R., Cheng, Y., & Wang, L. (2021). Sociomoral temperament: A mediator between wellbeing and social outcomes in Young children. Frontiers in Psychology, 12. e742199 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.742199.
Natale, L. L., Teodoro, M. L. M., Barreto, G.d. V., & Haase, V. G. (2008). Propriedades psicométricas de tarefas Para avaliar funções executivas em pré-escolares [psychometric properties of tasks to evaluate executive functions in preschoolers]. Psicologia em pesquisa, 2(2), 23–35.
Nayak, B. K. (2010). Understanding the relevance of sample size calculation. Indian Journal of Ophthalmology, 58(6), 469–470. https://doi.org/10.4103/0301-4738.71673
NHLBI. (2021). Study quality assessment tools. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Retrieved March 11, 2022, from https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-topics/study-quality-assessment-tools
*Nicolais, G., Fazeli-Fariz Hendi, S., Modesti, C., & Presaghi, F. (2017). Early moral conscience: The development of a moral short played stories procedure. Infant Mental Health Journal, 38(3), 391–405. https://doi.org/10.1002/imhj.21640.
Nigg, J. T. (2017). Annual research review: On the relations among self-regulation, self-control, executive functioning, effortful control, cognitive control, impulsivity, risk-taking, and inhibition for developmental psychopathology. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 58(4), 361–383. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12675
Nucci, L. P., & Turiel, E. (1978). Social interactions and the development of social concepts in preschool children. Child Development, 49(2), 400–407. https://doi.org/10.2307/1128704
Nunner-Winkler, G. (1993). The growth of moral motivation. In G. G. Noam & T. E. Wren (Eds.), The moral self (pp. 269–291). MIT Press.
Orwin, R. G. (1983). A fail-safe N for effect size in meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Statistics, 8(2), 157–159. https://doi.org/10.2307/1164923
Oser, F. (2013). Models of moral motivation. In F. Oser & T. Lovat (Eds.), Handbook of moral motivation: Theories, models, applications (pp. 7–24). Sense Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6209-275-4_2
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., et al. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
*Panfile, T. M., & Laible, D. J. (2012). Attachment security and child's empathy: The mediating role of emotion regulation. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 58(1), 1–21.
Peterson, R. A., & Brown, S. P. (2005). On the use of beta coefficients in meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(1), 175–181. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.1.175
Piaget, J. (1965). The moral development. Free Press.
Piaget, J. (1972). The moral judgment of the child. Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Pigott, T. D. (1994). Methods for handling missing data in research synthesis. In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (Vol. Vol. 4, pp. 163–176). Russell Sage Foundation.
Ponitz, C. E. C., McClelland, M. M., Jewkes, A. M., Connor, C. M., Farris, C. L., & Morrison, F. J. (2008). Touch your toes! Developing a direct measure of behavioral regulation in early childhood. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23(2), 141–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2007.01.004
Putnam, S., & Rothbart, M. (2006). Development of short and very short forms of the Children's behavior questionnaire. Journal of Personality Assessment, 87(1), 102–112. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa8701_09
Putnam, S. P., & Stifter, C. A. (2005). Behavioral approach–inhibition in toddlers: Prediction from infancy, positive and negative affective components, and relations with behavior problems. Child Development, 76(1), 212–226. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00840.x
R Core Team (2020). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved March 11, 2022, from https://www.R-project.org/
Rademacher, A., & Koglin, U. (2019). The concept of self-regulation and preschoolers’ social-emotional development: A systematic review. Early Child Development and Care, 189(14), 2299–2317. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2018.1450251
Raffaelli, M., Crockett, L. J., & Shen, Y. L. (2005). Developmental stability and change in self-regulation from childhood to adolescence. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 166(1), 54–76. https://doi.org/10.3200/GNTP.166.1.54-76
Reed, M. A., Pien, D. L., & Rothbart, M. K. (1984). Inhibitory self-control in preschool children. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 30, 131–147.
*Reis, R. M. A., & Sampaio, L. R. (2019). Child distributive behavior and inhibitory control in a private context. Developmental Psychology, 29, e2933. https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-4327e2933.
Rhee, S. H., Friedman, N. P., Corley, R. P., Hewitt, J. K., Hink, L. K., Johnson, D. P., Watts, A. K. S., Young, S. E., Robinson, J., Waldman, I. D., & Zahn-Waxler, C. (2016). An examination of the developmental propensity model of conduct problems. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 125(4), 550–564. https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000128
Robson, D. A., Allen, M. S., & Howard, S. J. (2020). Self-regulation in childhood as a predictor of future outcomes: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 146(4), 324–354. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000227
Rodriguez, M. L., Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1989). Cognitive person variables in the delay of gratification of older children at risk. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(2), 358–367. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.2.358
Rosenthal, R. (1979). The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86(3), 638–641. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638
Rosenthal, R. (1994). Parametric measures of effect size. In H. Cooper & L. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (Vol. Vol. 621, pp. 231–244). Russell Sage Foundation.
Rothbart, M. K. (1989). Temperament and development. In G. A. Kohnstamm, J. E. Bates, & M. K. Rothbart (Eds.), Temperament in childhood (pp. 187–247). Wiley.
Rothbart, M. K. & Derryberry, D. (1981). Theoretical Issues in Temperament. In M. Lewis & L. T. Taft (Eds.), Developmental Disabilities (pp. 383‐400). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐94‐011‐6314‐9_23
Rothbart, M. K., & Ahadi, S. A. (1994). Temperament and the development of personality. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103(1), 55–66. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.103.1.55
Rothbart, M. K., & Bates, J. E. (1998). Temperament. In W. Damon & N. Eisenberg (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Social, emotional and personality development (pp. 105–176). Wiley.
Rothbart, M. K., & Bates, J. E. (2007). Temperament. In W. Damon, R. E. Lerner, & N. Eisenberg (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Social, emotional, and personality development (pp. 99–166). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470147658.chpsy0303
Rothbart, M. K., & Putnam, S. P. (2002). Temperament and socialization. In L. Pulkkinen & A. Caspi (Eds.), Paths to successful development: Personality in the life course (pp. 19–45). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511489761.002
*Rothbart, M. K., Ahadi, S. A., & Hershey, K. L. (1994a). Temperament and social behavior in childhood. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 40(1), 21–39.
Rothbart, M. K., Derryberry, D., & Posner, M. I. (1994b). A psychobiological approach to the development of temperament. In J. E. Bates & T. D. Wachs (Eds.), Temperament: Individual differences in biology and behavior (pp. 83–116). American Psychological Association.
Rothbart, M. K., Ahadi, S. A., Hershey, K. L., & Fisher, P. (2001). Investigations of temperament at three to seven years: The children's behavior questionnaire. Child Development, 72(5), 1394–1408. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00355
Ryan, R. (2016). Cochrane consumers and communication group: Meta-analysis. Cochrane consumers and communication review group. Retrieved March 11, 2022, from http://cccrg.cochrane.org/sites/cccrg.cochrane.org/files/public/uploads/meta-analysis_revised_december_1st_1_2016.pdf
Sachdeva, S., Singh, P., & Medin, D. (2011). Culture and the quest for universal principles in moral reasoning. International Journal of Psychology, 46(3), 161–176. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207594.2011.568486
Sampaio, L. R., & Pires, M. F. D. N. (2015). Sharing in private and public situations: Does this really matter for children? The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 18, E42. https://doi.org/10.1017/sjp.2015.45
Sandstrom, A., Uher, R., & Pavlova, B. (2020). Prospective association between childhood behavioral inhibition and anxiety: A meta-analysis. Research on Child and Adolescent Psychopathology, 48(1), 57–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-019-00588-5
Schulze, A. (1996). Case report of an attention deficit disorder syndrome. Diagnosis and therapy of hyperactive children. Sozialpadiatrie und. Kinderärztliche Praxis, 18(2), 80–84.
Shields, A., & Cicchetti, D. (1995). The development of an emotion regulation assessment battery: Reliability and validity among at-risk grade-school children. Poster presented at the Society for Research in Child Development.
Shields, A., & Cicchetti, D. (1997). Emotion regulation among school-age children: The development and validation of a new criterion Q-sort scale. Developmental Psychology, 33(6), 906–916. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.33.6.906
Simonds, J., & Rothbart, M. K. (2004). The temperament in middle childhood questionnaire (TMCQ): A computerized self-report instrument for ages 7–10. Poster Session Presented Occasional Temperament Conference.
Skibbe, L. E., Montroy, J. J., Bowles, R. P., & Morrison, F. J. (2019). Self-regulation and the development of literacy and language achievement from preschool through second grade. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 46, 240–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.02.005
*Smetana, J. G. (1981). Preschool children's conceptions of moral and social rules. Child Development, 52(4), 1333–1336. https://doi.org/10.2307/1129527.
Smetana, J. G. (2006). Social-cognitive domain theory: Consistencies and variations in children's moral and social judgments. In M. Killen & J. G. Smetana (Eds.), Handbook of moral development (pp. 119–153). Erlbaum. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410615336
Smetana, J. G., & Braeges, J. L. (1990). The development of toddlers' moral and conventional judgments. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 36(3), 329–346.
Smetana, J. G., Rote, W. M., Jambon, M., Tasopoulos-Chan, M., Villalobos, M., & Comer, J. (2012). Developmental changes and individual differences in young children's moral judgments. Child Development, 83(2), 683–696. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01714.x
Smetana, J. G., Jambon, M., & Ball, C. (2014). The social domain approach to children’s moral and social judgments. In M. Killen & J. G. Smetana (Eds.), Handbook of moral development (Vol. 2, pp. 23–45). Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203581957.ch2
*Smith, C. E., Blake, P. R., & Harris, P. L. (2013). I should but I won’t: Why young children endorse norms of fair sharing but do not follow them. PLoS One, 8(3), e59510. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0059510.
Smith-Donald, R., Raver, C. C., Hayes, T., & Richardson, B. (2007). Preliminary construct and concurrent validity of the preschool self-regulation assessment (PSRA) for field-based research. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 22(2), 173–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2007.01.002
Stegge, H., & Ferguson, T. J. (1994). Self-conscious emotions: Maladaptive and adaptive scales (SCEMAS). Unpublished manuscript: Free University.
*Stifter, C. A., Cipriano, E., Conway, A., & Kelleher, R. (2009). Temperament and the development of conscience: The moderating role of effortful control. Social Development, 18(2), 353–374. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2008.00491.x.
Strayer, J., & Roberts, W. (2004). Empathy and observed anger and aggression in five-year-olds. Social Development, 13(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2004.00254.x
Stuss, D. T., & Alexander, M. P. (2000). Executive functions and the frontal lobes: A conceptual view. Psychological Research, 63(3), 289–298. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004269900007
Svetlova, M., Nichols, S. R., & Brownell, C. A. (2010). Toddlers’ prosocial behavior: From instrumental to empathic to altruistic helping. Child Development, 81(6), 1814–1827. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01512.x
*Tabibi, Z., Grayeli, F., & Abdekhodaei, M. S. (2016). Self-reported compliance with traffic rules in a sample of iranian preschoolers. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 75(1), 25–33. https://doi.org/10.1024/1421-0185/a000168.
*Tan, E. D., Mikami, A. Y., Luzhanska, A., & Hamlin, J. K. (2020). The homogeneity and heterogeneity of moral functioning in preschool. Child Development, 92(3), 959–975. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13458.
Tangney, J. P., Wagner, P., Burggraf, S., Gramzow, R., & Fletcher, C. (1990). The test of self-conscious affect for children (TOSCA-C). George Mason University.
Tangney, J. P., Stuewig, J., & Mashek, D. J. (2007). Moral emotions and moral behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 345–372. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070145
Thomas, J., Graziosi, S., Brunton, J., Ghouze, Z., O’Driscoll, P., & Bond, M. (2020). EPPI-reviewer: Advanced software for systematic reviews, maps and evidence synthesis. EPPI-Centre Software. UCL Social Research Institute Retrieved March 11, 2022, from http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/
Thompson, R. A. (1994). Emotion regulation: A theme in search of definition. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 59(2–3), 25–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5834.1994.tb01276.x
Turiel, E. (1983). The development of social knowledge: Morality and convention. Cambridge University Press.
Turiel, E. (2002). The culture of morality: Social development, context, and conflict. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511613500
Turiel, E. (2006). The development of morality. In W. Damon & N. Eisenberg (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Social, emotional, and personality development (Vol. Vol. 6, pp. 789–857). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470147658.chpsy0313
Valentine, J. C., Pigott, T. D., & Rothstein, H. R. (2010). How many studies do you need? A primer on statistical power for meta-analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 35(2), 215–247. https://doi.org/10.3102/1076998609346961
*Vera-Estay, E., Seni, A. G., Champagne, C., & Beauchamp, M. H. (2016). All for one: Contributions of age, socioeconomic factors, executive functioning, and social cognition to moral reasoning in childhood. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 227. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00227.
Viechtbauer, W. (2010). Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. Journal of Statistical Software, 36(3), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v036.i03
*Wang, Y., Hong, S., Pei, M., Wang, X., & Su, Y. (2021). Emotion matters in early polite lies: Preschoolers’ polite lie-telling in relation to cognitive and emotion-related abilities. Social Development1-17. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12549.
Warneken, F., Lohse, K., Melis, A. P., & Tomasello, M. (2011). Young children share the spoils after collaboration. Psychological Science, 22(2), 267–273. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610395392
Wechsler, D. (2005). Échelle d’intelligence de Wechsler pour Enfants – Quatrième edition – Version pour Francophones du Canada [Wechsler intelligence scale for children - fourth edition - version for Francophones in Canada]. Harcourt Assessment.
Weller, D., & Lagattuta, K. H. (2014). Children's judgments about prosocial decisions and emotions: Gender of the helper and recipient matters. Child Development, 85(5), 2011–2028. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12238
White, T., El Marroun, H., Nijs, I., Schmidt, M., van der Lugt, A., Wielopolki, P. A., Jaddoe, V. W., Hofman, A., Krestin, G. P., & Tiemeier, H. (2013). Pediatric population-based neuroimaging and the generation r study: The intersection of developmental neuroscience and epidemiology. European Journal of Epidemiology, 28(1), 99–111. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-013-9768-0
Wickham, H., Averick, M., Bryan, J., Chang, W., McGowan, L., François, R., Grolemund, G., Hayes, A., Henry, L., Hester, J., Kuhn, M., Pedersen, T., Miller, E., Bache, S., Müller, K., Ooms, J., Robinson, D., Seidel, D., Spinu, V., et al. (2019). Welcome to the tidyverse. Journal of Open Source Software, 4(43), e1686. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01686
*Wildeboer, A., Thijssen, S., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., Jaddoe, V. W. V., White, T., Tiemeier, H., & Van Ijzendoorn, M. H. (2017). Anxiety and social responsiveness moderate the effect of situational demands on children’s donating behavior. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 63(3), 340–366. https://doi.org/10.13110/merrpalmquar1982.63.3.0340.
Williams, S., Moore, K., Crossman, A. M., & Talwar, V. (2016). The role of executive functions and theory of mind in children’s prosocial lie-telling. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 141, 256–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2015.08.001
Willoughby, M. T., Blair, C. B., Wirth, R., & Greenberg, M. (2012). The measurement of executive function at age 5: Psychometric properties and relationship to academic achievement. Psychological Assessment, 24(1), 226–239. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025361
Wright, J. C. (1971). KRISP (Kansas reflection-impulsivity scale for preschoolers). University of Kansas.
*Yoo, H. N., & Smetana, J. G. (2021). Associations among child temperament, parenting, and young children's moral and conventional understanding: The moderating role of self-regulation. Social Development 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12571.
Young, S. K., Fox, N. A., & Zahn-Waxler, C. (1999). The relations between temperament and empathy in 2-year-olds. Developmental Psychology, 35(5), 1189–1197. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.35.5.1189
Zelazo, P. D. (2006). The dimensional change card Sort (DCCS): A method of assessing executive function in children. Nature Protocols, 1(1), 297–301. https://doi.org/10.1038/nprot.2006.46
Zelazo, P. D., & Carlson, S. M. (2012). Hot and cool executive function in childhood and adolescence: Development and plasticity. Child Development Perspectives, 6(4), 354–360. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-8606.2012.00246.x
Zelazo, P. D., & Müller, U. (2011). Executive function in typical and atypical development. In U. Goswami (Ed.), Blackwell handbook of childhood cognitive development (pp. 574–603). Blackwell Publishers Ltd.. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444325485.ch22
Zelazo, P. D., Anderson, J. E., Richler, J., Wallner-Allen, K., Beaumont, J. L., & Weintraub, S. (2013). II. NIH toolbox cognition battery (CB): Measuring executive function and attention. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 78(4), 16–33. 10.1111/mono.12032
Zhou, Q., Valiente, C., & Eisenberg, N. (2003). Empathy and its measurement. In L S J, S C R. (Eds.), Positive psychological assessment: A handbook of models and measures (pp. 269–284). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10612-017.
Funding
Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
Ethics Approval
There is no necessity for ethical approval due to the design of the study is a literature review.
Participation Consent
There is no necessity for informed consent due to the design of the study is a literature review.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary information
ESM 1
(DOCX 33.9 kb)
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Schütz, J., Koglin, U. A systematic review and meta-analysis of associations between self-regulation and morality in preschool and elementary school children. Curr Psychol 42, 22664–22696 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-03226-4
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-03226-4